Share this story

T-Mobile USA and YouTube have reached a compromise that will bring YouTube into T-Mobile's Binge On program, which reduces streaming quality but exempts videos from data caps.

The Google-owned YouTube was the most notable absence from Binge On when T-Mobile launched the program in November. YouTube later said that while reducing data charges can be good for customers, "it doesn’t justify throttling all video services, especially without explicit user consent."

Further Reading

But today, T-Mobile announced that YouTube, Google Play Movies, and a few other services have joined Binge On, bringing the total to more than 50 (including its own T-Mobile TV).

YouTube explained its change of heart in a blog post, explaining that T-Mobile has made changes to Binge On that make it easier for both customers and video services to opt out of the service. "The initial implementation of the Binge On program raised questions from both users and video services, including YouTube," the post said. "For instance, we didn’t think it was clear how the program would be implemented for video services that were not included in the 'free streaming' portion of the Binge On program. We also thought users needed more help to understand how the program worked and how to exercise their options."

Binge On is enabled by default and affects nearly all video regardless of whether a video provider has joined the program. Binge On throttles video streams and downloads to about 1.5Mbps, forcing the video services to deliver lower quality, typically about 480p. Video services that meet some technical requirements also get their data "zero-rated" so that customers can watch shows without it counting against high-speed data limits.

T-Mobile has agreed to make changes in response to feedback from YouTube and others. The carrier recently made it easier for customers to disable Binge On. "[R]ather than having to click through a series of menu items, users can now turn the setting off with an SMS short code and with two clicks from the T-Mobile app and one click from the my.tmobile.com site," YouTube said.

Secondly, video providers that aren't included in free streaming can now opt out of Binge On's throttling, YouTube said.

"Going forward, any video service meeting traffic-identification requirements will be able to opt-out, and T-Mobile will stop including them in the Binge On program and will no longer modify their video streams," YouTube said. "In addition, T-Mobile will now work with video services that wish to optimize their own streams, using an average data rate limit. This allows video services to offer users an improved video experience, even at lower data rates, by taking advantage of innovations such as video compression technology, benefiting T-Mobile, their customers, and video providers."

In sum, YouTube said the changes ensure that Binge On is available to users and video providers "on a non-preferential basis."

T-Mobile's Binge On is one of several zero-rating programs instituted by mobile carriers and home broadband providers. The Federal Communications Commission has been examining zero-rating to determine whether any specific implementations violate net neutrality rules.

Promoted Comments

"Going forward, any video service meeting traffic-identification requirements will be able to opt-out, and T-Mobile will stop including them in the Binge On program and will no longer modify their video streams," YouTube said. "In addition, T-Mobile will now work with video services that wish to optimize their own streams, using an average data rate limit. This allows video services to offer users an improved video experience, even at lower data rates, by taking advantage of innovations such as video compression technology, benefiting T-Mobile, their customers, and video providers."

This really fixes every problem I had with the program. Yeah, you can argue about the default ON setting, but with how much people seem to like the program, default ON sounds like the right option for the customer.

I like the idea of Binge-on but I wish it wasn't default on for people with unlimited data, such as myself. I totally get it being default on for people on tiered plans but it's pretty much pointless for me.

"Going forward, any video service meeting traffic-identification requirements will be able to opt-out, and T-Mobile will stop including them in the Binge On program and will no longer modify their video streams," YouTube said. "In addition, T-Mobile will now work with video services that wish to optimize their own streams, using an average data rate limit. This allows video services to offer users an improved video experience, even at lower data rates, by taking advantage of innovations such as video compression technology, benefiting T-Mobile, their customers, and video providers."

This really fixes every problem I had with the program. Yeah, you can argue about the default ON setting, but with how much people seem to like the program, default ON sounds like the right option for the customer.

"Going forward, any video service meeting traffic-identification requirements will be able to opt-out, and T-Mobile will stop including them in the Binge On program and will no longer modify their video streams," YouTube said. "In addition, T-Mobile will now work with video services that wish to optimize their own streams, using an average data rate limit. This allows video services to offer users an improved video experience, even at lower data rates, by taking advantage of innovations such as video compression technology, benefiting T-Mobile, their customers, and video providers."

This really fixes every problem I had with the program. Yeah, you can argue about the default ON setting, but with how much people seem to like the program, default ON sounds like the right option for the customer.

So long as it isn't extra $$$ per month! This is what I worry about. Something this good never lasts. When I got my first data plan, it was unlimited. Now caps are the norm. Heck, unlimited wired internet is becoming an endangered species.

"Going forward, any video service meeting traffic-identification requirements will be able to opt-out, and T-Mobile will stop including them in the Binge On program and will no longer modify their video streams," YouTube said. "In addition, T-Mobile will now work with video services that wish to optimize their own streams, using an average data rate limit. This allows video services to offer users an improved video experience, even at lower data rates, by taking advantage of innovations such as video compression technology, benefiting T-Mobile, their customers, and video providers."

This really fixes every problem I had with the program. Yeah, you can argue about the default ON setting, but with how much people seem to like the program, default ON sounds like the right option for the customer.

So long as it isn't extra $$$ per month! This is what I worry about. Something this good never lasts. When I got my first data plan, it was unlimited. Now caps are the norm. Heck, unlimited wired internet is becoming an endangered species.

Always a possibility I suppose. However, TMo has made no indication it will go that route.

Perhaps if a new CEO runs the company or it is bought out by another. Until then, I doubt it.

"Going forward, any video service meeting traffic-identification requirements will be able to opt-out, and T-Mobile will stop including them in the Binge On program and will no longer modify their video streams," YouTube said. "In addition, T-Mobile will now work with video services that wish to optimize their own streams, using an average data rate limit. This allows video services to offer users an improved video experience, even at lower data rates, by taking advantage of innovations such as video compression technology, benefiting T-Mobile, their customers, and video providers."

This really fixes every problem I had with the program. Yeah, you can argue about the default ON setting, but with how much people seem to like the program, default ON sounds like the right option for the customer.

I think auto-on is the better choice for T-MO than opt-in. Most consumers will here about this either through ads or when they are purchasing their plan. Most customers are not diligent enough to make sure that no only do they opt-in but also that the service is working correctly. I could foresee a lot of people hitting their data caps early thinking they opted-in and didn't.

I like the idea of Binge-on but I wish it wasn't default on for people with unlimited data, such as myself. I totally get it being default on for people on tiered plans but it's pretty much pointless for me.

My issue with this is it still requires services to opt out of Binge On. Throttling unsupported video streams is not ok. I pay for the data plan I have and would like to use it to it's fullest potential.

I like the idea of Binge-on but I wish it wasn't default on for people with unlimited data, such as myself. I totally get it being default on for people on tiered plans but it's pretty much pointless for me.

I have no problems with it being Opt-Out for everyone. It doesn't cost me anything to have and there is very little downside to it.

In the past, generally things you were automatically Opted In for either cost you additional money or opened you to massive advertising, etc.

This plan does neither and is (generally) a benefit for the customers.

Although Binge-on wasn't for me, I like the idea and think they're handling it appropriately. Some might argue that being on by default is wrong. I see it differently, of people that stream video some care about HD and some don't. I can imagine those that want HD streams finding out how to disable it. I don't think people who don't care about video quality would have looked for a way to downgrade their streams.

On the issue of zero-rating generally, there is another path that could avoid the conflict altogether. Carriers could embrace simple, "network independent" toll-free apps and achieve the same benefits for themselves and their customers (http://www.freebyte.me). This is because "autonomous" toll-free app technology is specifically designed to prevent perceived forms of network induced prioritization / favoritism / price discrimination (whether intentional or accidental), and therefore won’t violate net neutrality principles. Also, the FCC’s regulatory remit likely ends at the edge of the core network – not extending to the billions of network independent apps (third party software, whether toll-free apps or otherwise) that already reside on phones after being installed at the sole discretion of the phone owner / retail consumer. This is the path we are seeing others take (India's TRAI) and I think will be the constructive way forward here in the US. Thanks for listening.

I hope this doesn't take off. Outfits like this are the reason we needed net neutrality regulation in the first place. It incentivates carriers to bring down data allowance so as to coerce services to purchase data if they do not want to be throttled. Double-dipping for the carriers and no guarantee this will be offered in a fair, cost-based and non-discriminative way.

I don't like T-mob plan either but at least they don't charge video services, seems to be transparent and non-discriminatory and can be opted-out by end clients.

So, great news. I had shit WiFi in a hotel last weekend, and burned through 1.5 GB of data going through my daily(!) YT subscription feeds, granted at 720p. Would love to be able to browse YT at will w/o worrying about my data plans or spotty WiFi.

But... can someone convince me zero-rating isn't anti-net neutrality, at least in spirit? I mean sure, as it stands, this is great for most consumers, but one of the the strongest arguments has always been: if you're a start up video service, and you're not part of their Binge On network, you're at a massive disadvantage compared to established players. Yes, TM looks like they're being fairly open with providers, as well as customers, to opt in or out, but what small player could afford to opt out when giants like YT are in? I really believe carriers and ISPs should just be dumb pipes, so this still leaves a bit of a stink as I enjoy all my sweet, sweet "free" bandwidth.

"Going forward, any video service meeting traffic-identification requirements will be able to opt-out, and T-Mobile will stop including them in the Binge On program and will no longer modify their video streams," YouTube said. "In addition, T-Mobile will now work with video services that wish to optimize their own streams, using an average data rate limit. This allows video services to offer users an improved video experience, even at lower data rates, by taking advantage of innovations such as video compression technology, benefiting T-Mobile, their customers, and video providers."

This really fixes every problem I had with the program. Yeah, you can argue about the default ON setting, but with how much people seem to like the program, default ON sounds like the right option for the customer.

I still don't say default on is good for customers, but these changes are very much for the better. It probably shifts me from against the program to merely neutral.

But... can someone convince me zero-rating isn't anti-net neutrality, at least in spirit? I mean sure, as it stands, this is great for most consumers, but one of the the strongest arguments has always been: if you're a start up video service, and you're not part of their Binge On network, you're at a massive disadvantage compared to established players. Yes, TM looks like they're being fairly open with providers, as well as customers, to opt in or out, but what small player could afford to opt out when giants like YT are in? I really believe carriers and ISPs should just be dumb pipes, so this still leaves a bit of a stink as I enjoy all my sweet, sweet "free" bandwidth.

Technically, you are correct.

However, said start-up has few barriers (technical - I believe) to qualify for said program and T-Mo even tells them how to do it.

If there were high barriers or fees of some kind, then I'd agree with you.

Since its not and is customer friendly, I can't complain. I think it is the best we're going to get for a long time.

I still don't say default on is good for customers, but these changes are very much for the better. It probably shifts me from against the program to merely neutral.

Yes but it really doesn't hurt customers either. With other companies, you had to opt of out things that were of a negative benefit for the customer.

I'm ok with this. Plus, it is simple to find to change and is not buried in some deep hole to make it impossible to find.

There is almost no downside to this program from a customer's viewpoint.

The downsides are no longer significant, hence I say I'm neutral on it. Companies who don't know about this will still get throttled by default, and customers will still be opted in by default, and even if t-mobile makes it easier to turn off (and it wasn't even that hard to turn off before) they still might not understand what it is, and not be able to make an informed decision. That ends up with customers getting reduced speeds on some videos while still having it hit their data caps, which isn't consumer friendly. Binge on should either be opt-in for consumers, or all video should be prorated. If they did either of those things I'd say the program is consumer friendly, but until then I'm neutral at best.

I still don't say default on is good for customers, but these changes are very much for the better. It probably shifts me from against the program to merely neutral.

Yes but it really doesn't hurt customers either. With other companies, you had to opt of out things that were of a negative benefit for the customer.

I'm ok with this. Plus, it is simple to find to change and is not buried in some deep hole to make it impossible to find.

There is almost no downside to this program from a customer's viewpoint.

The downsides are no longer significant, hence I say I'm neutral on it. Companies who don't know about this will still get throttled by default, and customers will still be opted in by default, and even if t-mobile makes it easier to turn off (and it wasn't even that hard to turn off before) they still might not understand what it is, and not be able to make an informed decision. That ends up with customers getting reduced speeds on some videos while still having it hit their data caps, which isn't consumer friendly. Binge on should either be opt-in for consumers, or all video should be prorated. If they did either of those things I'd say the program is consumer friendly, but until then I'm neutral at best.

I'd think that would depend on how they inform customers in the future once it becomes the "normal". If they never say anything about it to new customers, then I'd agree with you. I doubt they will do so tho.

Plus, you can't help everyone. Nothing is going to me 100%. Those that are uninformed despite the company's best efforts to educate will always remain ignorant.

Net Neutrality is mainly concerned with someone having to pay for a competitive advantage. So called "fast lanes," where companies could pay to get their traffic delivered faster, is a major concern. Also of concern is paying for "zero rating" on cell networks, where the traffic doesn't count against the consumer.

Quote:

I mean sure, as it stands, this is great for most consumers, but one of the the strongest arguments has always been: if you're a start up video service, and you're not part of their Binge On network, you're at a massive disadvantage compared to established players. Yes, TM looks like they're being fairly open with providers, as well as customers, to opt in or out, but what small player could afford to opt out when giants like YT are in?

The big thing with Binge On is that T-Mobile doesn't charge for access to the program. There's actually a number of very small providers part of the program. The only requirements are technical ones. So it's not putting an undue burden on the smaller players, and an upstart can opt into the program just as easily as Youtube can.

But... can someone convince me zero-rating isn't anti-net neutrality, at least in spirit? I mean sure, as it stands, this is great for most consumers, but one of the the strongest arguments has always been: if you're a start up video service, and you're not part of their Binge On network, you're at a massive disadvantage compared to established players. Yes, TM looks like they're being fairly open with providers, as well as customers, to opt in or out, but what small player could afford to opt out when giants like YT are in? I really believe carriers and ISPs should just be dumb pipes, so this still leaves a bit of a stink as I enjoy all my sweet, sweet "free" bandwidth.

Technically, you are correct.

However, said start-up has few barriers (technical - I believe) to qualify for said program and T-Mo even tells them how to do it.

If there were high barriers or fees of some kind, then I'd agree with you.

Since its not and is customer friendly, I can't complain. I think it is the best we're going to get for a long time.

I'm a big believer in the saying, perfect is the enemy of good, but there's just something about zero-rating that I can't fully back, even though I do enjoy the benefits. Those barriers can be raised later, and at a time that makes it difficult to get around. Let's just hope there's always enough competition that both consumers and content creators have a choice to walk away.

I still don't say default on is good for customers, but these changes are very much for the better. It probably shifts me from against the program to merely neutral.

Yes but it really doesn't hurt customers either. With other companies, you had to opt of out things that were of a negative benefit for the customer.

I'm ok with this. Plus, it is simple to find to change and is not buried in some deep hole to make it impossible to find.

There is almost no downside to this program from a customer's viewpoint.

The downsides are no longer significant, hence I say I'm neutral on it. Companies who don't know about this will still get throttled by default, and customers will still be opted in by default, and even if t-mobile makes it easier to turn off (and it wasn't even that hard to turn off before) they still might not understand what it is, and not be able to make an informed decision. That ends up with customers getting reduced speeds on some videos while still having it hit their data caps, which isn't consumer friendly. Binge on should either be opt-in for consumers, or all video should be prorated. If they did either of those things I'd say the program is consumer friendly, but until then I'm neutral at best.

I'd think that would depend on how they inform customers in the future once it becomes the "normal". If they never say anything about it to new customers, then I'd agree with you. I doubt they will do so tho.

Plus, you can't help everyone. Nothing is going to me 100%. Those that are uninformed despite the company's best efforts to educate will always remain ignorant.

If all video was prorated ignorance wouldn't matter. If it was opt in, only informed people would be in the program, so ignorance won't hurt you.

But... can someone convince me zero-rating isn't anti-net neutrality, at least in spirit? I mean sure, as it stands, this is great for most consumers, but one of the the strongest arguments has always been: if you're a start up video service, and you're not part of their Binge On network, you're at a massive disadvantage compared to established players. Yes, TM looks like they're being fairly open with providers, as well as customers, to opt in or out, but what small player could afford to opt out when giants like YT are in? I really believe carriers and ISPs should just be dumb pipes, so this still leaves a bit of a stink as I enjoy all my sweet, sweet "free" bandwidth.

Technically, you are correct.

However, said start-up has few barriers (technical - I believe) to qualify for said program and T-Mo even tells them how to do it.

If there were high barriers or fees of some kind, then I'd agree with you.

Since its not and is customer friendly, I can't complain. I think it is the best we're going to get for a long time.

I'm a big believer in the saying, perfect is the enemy of good, but there's just something about zero-rating that I can't fully back, even though I do enjoy the benefits. Those barriers can be raised later, and at a time that makes it difficult to get around. Let's just hope there's always enough competition that both consumers and content creators have a choice to walk away.

Sure, barriers can always be raised later. But you forget the flipside. Regulations can ALSO be changed later too.

Now if they'll start offering the unlimited streaming to customers with under 3 GB of data in their plan...

Now you're just being cheap. Pay for the perks or quit complaining.

If this were something that cost them extra to provide, like a physical item, sure. But this is probably literally a configuration file/database row/etc. somewhere that costs them a few seconds of time to enable for all accounts.

Now if they'll start offering the unlimited streaming to customers with under 3 GB of data in their plan...

Now you're just being cheap. Pay for the perks or quit complaining.

If this were something that cost them extra to provide, like a physical item, sure. But this is probably literally a configuration file/database row/etc. somewhere that costs them a few seconds of time to enable for all accounts.

Well, T-Mo does need a reason to upsell customers. If they provided all the perks at the lowest level, there'd be no reason to use the higher tier programs.

Now if they'll start offering the unlimited streaming to customers with under 3 GB of data in their plan...

Now you're just being cheap. Pay for the perks or quit complaining.

If this were something that cost them extra to provide, like a physical item, sure. But this is probably literally a configuration file/database row/etc. somewhere that costs them a few seconds of time to enable for all accounts.

Well, T-Mo does need a reason to upsell customers. If they provided all the perks at the lowest level, there'd be no reason to use the higher tier programs.

Yeah, but it's entirely a business decision on their part, I don't think it's being cheap to ask for something that cost the other party nothing. Not that TMo don't have valid reasons to say no (like what you mention).

T-Mobile has been great for my family. My daughter regularly burns through her 6(!)GB of data before being throttled (granted most of it is because I need a better wifi router as my house is old and reception for wifi and cell sucks), and recently they just offered all existing customers a free upgrade to 10GB if you're on their family plan, and that was extremely easy. We're on the 4 lines for $120 and it's been an insane value. Binge On has been nice in that respect, even though we have that much data to use, and it's good to hear YouTube is now on board with it. What would be nice is Binge On turning off when you're on wifi so you don't have to deal with the settings, though I wonder if it does turn off when on wifi. I'll have to check on that.

The only thing that keeps T-Mobile from being a total winner is their disappointing signal, though at least in the recent month I've been able to get a signal in the room I work in where before I was lucky to even have 2G appear on my phone.

Binge on should either be opt-in for consumers, or all video should be prorated. If they did either of those things I'd say the program is consumer friendly, but until then I'm neutral at best.

I think the big issue is that, unless the video provider has specifically opted in or out by providing T-Mobile the means to identify their video streams, T-Mobile can't guarantee how they'll handle it, one way or the other.

So say there's a service of which T-Mobile can identify about 50% of the streams. It can currently throttle the streams it identify, but if it tries to zero-rate the ones it throttles, the consumer is left in the confused state where some of the video they're watching from that provider counts against their cap, and some doesn't. It could give the consumer a headache trying to figure out their usage for the month, and lead to customer complaints.

So I think T-Mobile is taking the safer route of throttling where it can to reduce data usage for the consumer, but not zero-rating a service unless they're sure they can detect 100% of the streams.

Binge on should either be opt-in for consumers, or all video should be prorated. If they did either of those things I'd say the program is consumer friendly, but until then I'm neutral at best.

I think the big issue is that, unless the video provider has specifically opted in or out by providing T-Mobile the means to identify their video streams, T-Mobile can't guarantee how they'll handle it, one way or the other.

So say there's a service of which T-Mobile can identify about 50% of the streams. It can currently throttle the streams it identify, but if it tries to zero-rate the ones it throttles, the consumer is left in the confused state where some of the video they're watching from that provider counts against their cap, and some doesn't. It could give the consumer a headache trying to figure out their usage for the month, and lead to customer complaints.

So I think T-Mobile is taking the safer route of throttling where it can to reduce data usage for the consumer, but not zero-rating a service unless they're sure they can detect 100% of the streams.

The video only hurts their cap less when throttled if the feed automatically changes quality based on your download speed. A great deal of video on the Internet doesn't do that anyway, meaning it's already low res and wouldn't hurt your cap anyway, or it's high res only and your video will constantly buffer.

"Going forward, any video service meeting traffic-identification requirements will be able to opt-out, and T-Mobile will stop including them in the Binge On program and will no longer modify their video streams," YouTube said. "In addition, T-Mobile will now work with video services that wish to optimize their own streams, using an average data rate limit. This allows video services to offer users an improved video experience, even at lower data rates, by taking advantage of innovations such as video compression technology, benefiting T-Mobile, their customers, and video providers."

This really fixes every problem I had with the program. Yeah, you can argue about the default ON setting, but with how much people seem to like the program, default ON sounds like the right option for the customer.

So long as it isn't extra $$$ per month! This is what I worry about. Something this good never lasts. When I got my first data plan, it was unlimited. Now caps are the norm. Heck, unlimited wired internet is becoming an endangered species.

I would say that after DOCSIS 3.1 is widely implemented by the cable ISPs, perhaps in the times after Friday January 1st 2021, then the caps will be far more reasonable. The telephone companies on the other hand may simply rely on the fact that the inherent limits of ADSL2+ technology will be enough of a cap.

Now if they'll start offering the unlimited streaming to customers with under 3 GB of data in their plan...

Now you're just being cheap. Pay for the perks or quit complaining.

If this were something that cost them extra to provide, like a physical item, sure. But this is probably literally a configuration file/database row/etc. somewhere that costs them a few seconds of time to enable for all accounts.

The cost to "enable accounts" is likely minimal, but there is a cost for this service, since it's delivering data to the consumer that the consumer isn't being charged for. This will likely lead to increased usage by consumers, which leads to an increase in necessary capacity to cover the network demands, which T-Mobile has to pay out of what they were already getting from these customers.

With the 3GB+ data tiers, T-Mobile has calculated that their profit margins were enough to add this service and its extra costs, reducing but not elminating their profit margins. For sub-3GB data tiers, the profit margins are likely so tight that adding any zero-rated video usage to those accounts could likely tip them over from "making T-Mobile some small amount of money" to "costing T-Mobile money to service these customers."

Yeah, but it's entirely a business decision on their part, I don't think it's being cheap to ask for something that cost the other party nothing. Not that TMo don't have valid reasons to say no (like what you mention).

Sure, that's classic capitalism.

Customers want all they can get for the lowest possible price and companies want to get as much money from customers by providing as little as possible.

So I have no problems with people asking but the flip side is companies need reasons to upsell customers.

Would I love it if I could lower my bill and get the same services? Absolutely!

In which case the video service should likely "opt out" with T-Mobile, although if they can't serve a consistent stream at the throttled speed (1.5Mbps), then they likely don't have any business streaming over mobile anyway, since the speeds could dip under that on any cell network simply by virtue of network conjestion/signal strength/interference.

One thing that hasn't been brought up is how T-Mobile was throttling all video downloading, not just streaming, and that straight downloading of a video file was throttled. In light of this, my view is that if T-Mobile needs to change anything else, they should throttle only those services that have explicitly opted in. The throttling of what T-Mobile is "guessing" is a video stream is causing side effects, and your propose solution of zero-rating anything T-Mobile auto-throttles doesn't fix them.

"Going forward, any video service meeting traffic-identification requirements will be able to opt-out, and T-Mobile will stop including them in the Binge On program and will no longer modify their video streams," YouTube said. "In addition, T-Mobile will now work with video services that wish to optimize their own streams, using an average data rate limit. This allows video services to offer users an improved video experience, even at lower data rates, by taking advantage of innovations such as video compression technology, benefiting T-Mobile, their customers, and video providers."

This really fixes every problem I had with the program. Yeah, you can argue about the default ON setting, but with how much people seem to like the program, default ON sounds like the right option for the customer.

The problem is that it's still default-On for the video providers. So providers who don't participate and aren't zero-rated will still have their video streams throttled until they opt out.

Now if they'll start offering the unlimited streaming to customers with under 3 GB of data in their plan...

Now you're just being cheap. Pay for the perks or quit complaining.

If this were something that cost them extra to provide, like a physical item, sure. But this is probably literally a configuration file/database row/etc. somewhere that costs them a few seconds of time to enable for all accounts.

The cost to "enable accounts" is likely minimal, but there is a cost for this service, since it's delivering data to the consumer that the consumer isn't being charged for. This will likely lead to increased usage by consumers, which leads to an increase in necessary capacity to cover the network demands, which T-Mobile has to pay out of what they were already getting from these customers.

With the 3GB+ data tiers, T-Mobile has calculated that their profit margins were enough to add this service and its extra costs, reducing but not elminating their profit margins. For sub-3GB data tiers, the profit margins are likely so tight that adding any zero-rated video usage to those accounts could likely tip them over from "making T-Mobile some small amount of money" to "costing T-Mobile money to service these customers."

I'm not convinced this costs them more in the long run. It's probably like unlimited vacation: in theory, your employees can take off more time, but in reality, they end up taking off less time. I wouldn't be surprised if this actually ends up lowering their overall network costs. I mean, on a phone, the most significant bandwidth usage is probably going to be video anyways (it's not like you're installing 20 GB games to your phone for example). Web browsing is miniscule in comparison. Music/audio might be second, but it's probably pretty far behind. (Then again, I know a lot of people that use YouTube to listen to music, so that's still video.)

T-Mobile has been great for my family. My daughter regularly burns through her 6(!)GB of data before being throttled (granted most of it is because I need a better wifi router as my house is old and reception for wifi and cell sucks), and recently they just offered all existing customers a free upgrade to 10GB if you're on their family plan, and that was extremely easy. We're on the 4 lines for $120 and it's been an insane value. Binge On has been nice in that respect, even though we have that much data to use, and it's good to hear YouTube is now on board with it. What would be nice is Binge On turning off when you're on wifi so you don't have to deal with the settings, though I wonder if it does turn off when on wifi. I'll have to check on that.

The only thing that keeps T-Mobile from being a total winner is their disappointing signal, though at least in the recent month I've been able to get a signal in the room I work in where before I was lucky to even have 2G appear on my phone.

While I've been very happy with T-Mobile since my wife and I switched to it 5 years ago they didn't just offer all existing customers with the family plan a free upgrade to 10GB. They might have upgraded all the higher tiers to 10GBs but as someone who has decent wifi and no real need for mobile data I'm on the 1GB family plan and it defintally did not get bumped up to 10GB.

The big thing with Binge On is that T-Mobile doesn't charge for access to the program. There's actually a number of very small providers part of the program. The only requirements are technical ones. So it's not putting an undue burden on the smaller players, and an upstart can opt into the program just as easily as Youtube can.

Nice in theory. How many upstarts have you actually spoken with about it? They still haven't responded to my inquiries about becoming an "upstart" participant (on the provider end).

I may just start over from scratch, but so far, they've just completely ignored me.